Plenković accuses the SDP of obstructing the work of the Constitutional Court

The stalemate in electing three new judges to the Constitutional Court continues. The Croatian Prime Minister has accused the SDP of obstructing the work of the Constitutional Court by blocking the election of the three candidates. However, the SDP claims that it is the HDZ that is guilty of trying to transform the court into an extension of its own politics.

The drama over the election of three new judges to the Constitutional Court continues, as neither the parliamentary majority nor the opposition appear to be capable of reaching a compromise agreement on the election of three new judges to the court.

To be approved, the candidates need a two-thirds majority in Parliament, which means support from at least 22 opposition MPs. However, the SDP has already indicated that they will not back the candidates at the May 15th vote, accusing Prime Minister Andrej Plenković of trying to make the court an extension of his own politics. Justice, Public Administration and Digital Transformation Minister, Damir Habijan, rejected this assessment: "We have a situation that we can fill the Constitutional Court. But we can only do that if we can reach an agreement. Specifically, if the SDP stops - and I won't even call this an ultimatum anymore, this is simply unreasonable behavior that only they can explain."

Prime Minister Plenković commented on the election of the Constitutional Court judges while participating in a business forum in Zagreb, claiming that it was the SDP and not the HDZ that was blocking the election of the three judges to the Constitutional Court: "Just to make it clear to everyone, currently the Constitutional Court is not working. They are resolving something that was left unresolved when there were 13 of them. And they will resolve it. After that, there is no Constitutional Court. If that is the point, let them say openly; we do not want a functional Constitutional Court. We can have a debate in the Parliament on whether we need a Constitutional Court. Why are we needlessly tormenting ourselves? What's the problem, if that's the point? Or do they want a Constitutional Court in which there are 13 judges - or at least seven and if possible more - who correspond ideologically and are close in some way to the opposition. That is the point of this debate."

Source: HRT